-
Hello all;
It won't be too long now before things start warming-up here in North Florida to where, once again, the wilderness will be teaming with butterflies
I have updated my Butterfly Collection Website and will be continuously posting new specimens as they get captured throughout the new year. Here are some sample images taken from last year (and one from this year):
Jack
.
-
Mr Koerner, I'm tickled by your website and photography.
I thought I was the only bloom chasing butterfly watcher,
do you have holes in the elbows of your favorite shirts?
OK cool website too,
I like the format adding as you go.
I'll keep watching for more as you get them.
PS
do you have tricks to get in close?
I'm using a 10-20 from time to time and have had a hard time getting in there with it.
Looking forward to more.
-
Mr Koerner, I'm tickled by your website and photography.
I thought I was the only bloom chasing butterfly watcher,
Thank you very much, and no, you're not the only bloom-chasing butterfly watcher
do you have holes in the elbows of your favorite shirts?
LOL, no, in Florida I am usually in a tank-top or short-sleeved shirt ... but I do have grass stains all over the pants from chasing these little things all over
OK cool website too,
I like the format adding as you go.
I'll keep watching for more as you get them.
Thank you. It's pretty fun actually. It all started out with me taking butterfly photos for my lil' niece in California ... now it is an obsession for me too, not just her
PS
do you have tricks to get in close?
I'm using a 10-20 from time to time and have had a hard time getting in there with it.
Looking forward to more.
Yes, the general rule is go in toward any specimen "low and slow" ... and, also, if you begin in the early morning (when it's still a little chilly) you will be much more likely to get up close to them, as they are more likely to remain in position trying to warm themselves up. Not only that, but the lighting is better. By midday, not only is the lighting harsh, but the butterflies are much faster and more wary.
Hope to see you add a few images of your own
Thanks,
Jack
.
-
...
Hope to see you add a few images of your own
Thanks,
Jack
.
Hi, I'm not sure if you mean it's OK to add an image or 2 so I'll only put recent ones.
I know there are a lot of monarch pictures out there.
I know many people have been very close to one.
I know some of you have them living in your bushes posing all day for you.
I walk 5 or so miles to a very special habitat and this is the best I could do!!???!!!
The signs point to lucky shot soon maybe.
Here's the King of the chaparral, Emperor of the pasture, and the Ruler of the farm who will jealously guard its domain with iron wings!
Chase every other butterfly it can off its hillside perch, and will bicker with every other butterfly in eyeshot.
This is a small one. I expect it'll be knocked off as alpha monarch by a larger one.
Last year's top bug was about 3 inches across.
I only have poor exposures from last year but now I have a purpose.
I will get a full view clear shot of my favorite quarry this year.
Here's the only one I got yesterday.
Me and the dog scared it off, but not before it swarmed in all up in my grill trying to buffalo me into retreat.
I didn't know there were so many crunchies on the pasture ground and it's impossible to not make crunching sounds.
I think the things feel vibration as much as anything.
And once they know I'm there, they leave never to return until the next round.
So today might see sun, if we do I'm going!!
-
I slacked-off a bit on this thread, but here are 3 nice images I got of an Achemon Sphinx Moth today ...
(http://www.JohnKoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/achemon.jpg)
(http://www.JohnKoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/achemon1.jpg)
(http://www.JohnKoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/achemon2.jpg)
This is truly a beautiful animal in person, big enough almost to fill the palm of your hand ...
These images were shot with a Canon 7D and a 100mm f/2.8 L USM macro lens. The first and last images were shot firing the built-in flash, while the middle image was shot with natural lighting.
Enjoy,
Jack
.
-
Nicely done! They're beautiful animals.
Mike.
-
Thank you.
.
-
Nice work John! It's great to find others here with the same passion. You've got some species that might be common in your backyard that would give me a heart attack here in California. The grass is always greener....I've photographed about 80 species (including subspecies) in CA and AZ since getting the bug in 2006. After years of hiking with a macro lens and looking for something to photograph I now have a specific goal every time I go out.
You can find my own growing digital collection at:
http://www.solardarkroom.com/galleries/butterflies/ (http://www.solardarkroom.com/galleries/butterflies/)
and a diary of my adventures here:
http://www.solardarkroom.com/blog/ (http://www.solardarkroom.com/blog/)
Thanks for sharing,
David
Hello all;
It won't be too long now before things start warming-up here in North Florida to where, once again, the wilderness will be teaming with butterflies
I have updated my Butterfly Collection Website and will be continuously posting new specimens as they get captured throughout the new year. Here are some sample images taken from last year (and one from this year):
Jack
.
-
Nice work John! It's great to find others here with the same passion. You've got some species that might be common in your backyard that would give me a heart attack here in California. The grass is always greener....I've photographed about 80 species (including subspecies) in CA and AZ since getting the bug in 2006. After years of hiking with a macro lens and looking for something to photograph I now have a specific goal every time I go out.
Thank you very much David, and very nice of you to post. I more than sympathize with the "grass is greener" sentiment, as I am originally from California (Arcadia, which is not far from where you are either), and I looked with nostalgia at all the wonderful photos you have of species, many of which I have not seen in over a decade---some of which I had not seen ever!
You can find my own growing digital collection at:
http://www.solardarkroom.com/galleries/butterflies/ (http://www.solardarkroom.com/galleries/butterflies/)
and a diary of my adventures here:
http://www.solardarkroom.com/blog/ (http://www.solardarkroom.com/blog/)
Thanks for sharing,
David
That is a gogeous collection and I really do like your website. It's great that you have a knowledgeable person acting as a guide for you to go collecting. I really like your images and some of the shots you've captured are sensational. What equipment do you use? Also, I notice that all of your shots are taken with natural lighting. In many cases, I find natural lighting shots to be truly beautiful ... however, when the light is harsh, I find that the background lighting tends to become a not-so-pleasing green, which is where using a ringlight flash can really make a shot "pop" with the natural color of the specimen itself, rendering the background black (or near-black). Any thoughts on this?
In closing, great work yourself and I admire your dedication. I myself just started a blog a few days ago, so there's not much on it yet. But I really enjoyed reading yours, doubly-so since I used to be able to venture into (quite literally) the same areas where you are enjoying now.
Cheers!
Jack
.
-
Thank you very much David, and very nice of you to post. I more than sympathize with the "grass is greener" sentiment, as I am originally from California (Arcadia, which is not far from where you are either), and I looked with nostalgia at all the wonderful photos you have of species, many of which I have not seen in over a decade---some of which I had not seen ever!
That is a gogeous collection and I really do like your website. It's great that you have a knowledgeable person acting as a guide for you to go collecting. I really like your images and some of the shots you've captured are sensational. What equipment do you use? Also, I notice that all of your shots are taken with natural lighting. In many cases, I find natural lighting shots to be truly beautiful ... however, when the light is harsh, I find that the background lighting tends to become a not-so-pleasing green, which is where using a ringlight flash can really make a shot "pop" with the natural color of the specimen itself, rendering the background black (or near-black). Any thoughts on this?
In closing, great work yourself and I admire your dedication. I myself just started a blog a few days ago, so there's not much on it yet. But I really enjoyed reading yours, doubly-so since I used to be able to venture into (quite literally) the same areas where you are enjoying now.
Cheers!
Jack
.
Jack:
First, thank you for your comments.
I'm shooting a 5DMkII and before 2009 a 30D. I own the 100mm Macro and occasionally rent longer glass for a particular species. As for flash, I used my 580 for the most recent shots of wintering monarchs. I made a long snoot out of foil that rested on top of a 600mm/f4. Otherwise no flash as you noticed. I have nothing against flash and indeed have some ideas about using my 580 wireless on the ground for fill. I like to shoot into the sun a lot to see the light through my subjects.
I actually love harsh light for this kind of photography. Many butterflies will perch with their wings parallel to the suns rays creating tiny shadows under each scale. This can create really great micro-contrast and make the image pop in that way. The time of day when landscape photographers are napping, I'm snapping. I also intentionally look for bright backgrounds and rarely find a color in nature I don't like. I just keep trying to find a POV that creates graphic lines and shapes and gradients that appeal to me. I don't consider the background less important than the subject but part of it. I guess it's just a matter of what inspires us. The dark backgrounds possible with flash are an effective way of isolating the subject so there's drama in that, not to mention the technical possibilities for extra DOF, reduced noise etc.
The key for me is research. I try to time my trips for when I think a particular species will be emerging and be there prepared. If I can find one that's just emerged it will be very sluggish and pose for extended periods. If my timing is perfect they'll also be moist and shiny still with every hair and scale in place. At this point it's more of a portrait sitting (with great hair and makeup people) than a paparazzo moment. During this time I'll continue to shoot, trying to solve each little problem one by one until I like what I'm seeing through the glass. I have spent upwards of 20 minutes with some freshly emerged butterflies and shot hundreds of frames until I got what I wanted. When I get home I end up deleting all but a few where the foliage, the wind, my perspective and the subjects behavior all come together in an image that captures the feeling I had in the moment.
I look forward to following your blog and photography in the future.
David
-
Jack:
First, thank you for your comments.
I'm shooting a 5DMkII and before 2009 a 30D. I own the 100mm Macro and occasionally rent longer glass for a particular species. As for flash, I used my 580 for the most recent shots of wintering monarchs. I made a long snoot out of foil that rested on top of a 600mm/f4. Otherwise no flash as you noticed. I have nothing against flash and indeed have some ideas about using my 580 wireless on the ground for fill. I like to shoot into the sun a lot to see the light through my subjects.
Hello again and very nice. Interesting that you like to see the light through your subjects. I will try that myself and see if I can come up with anything nice. Typically, I like the light to illuminate my subjects, not to go through them, but I can see where this perspective could produce some really interesting results.
I actually love harsh light for this kind of photography. Many butterflies will perch with their wings parallel to the suns rays creating tiny shadows under each scale. This can create really great micro-contrast and make the image pop in that way. The time of day when landscape photographers are napping, I'm snapping. I also intentionally look for bright backgrounds and rarely find a color in nature I don't like. I just keep trying to find a POV that creates graphic lines and shapes and gradients that appeal to me. I don't consider the background less important than the subject but part of it. I guess it's just a matter of what inspires us. The dark backgrounds possible with flash are an effective way of isolating the subject so there's drama in that, not to mention the technical possibilities for extra DOF, reduced noise etc.
Again, very interesting musings David, much different from my own in many ways. It's nice to be able to consider viewpoints other than my own. I appreciate the sentiment of not finding a color in nature that is not to like, but I myself oftentimes do. In my experience, sometimes the "natural" colors around (or behind) the butterfly will clash with the actual color of the butterfly, minimizing the impact of the animal rather than enhancing it. To me, this is where the flash comes in: it just wipes-out that unappealing color and makes the butterfly's own color pop. Another instance is shadows. Oftentimes butterfly will be on one flower, and the shadow of another flower is cast over the butterfly's wings. Without a flash, you get a big shadow across the butterfly ... but with the flash you get uniform color. And finally, there is the background. Oftentimes a convoluted mess of background sticks, grass, and/or dry earth can distract from an otherwise "perfect pose" of a beautiful butterfly. Again, the isolation of the flash, and the blacking of the background can make a beautiful image of what would have been an ordinary one.
On the other hand, sometimes I find the natural colors are so fresh and perfect that using a flash ruins the photo: the flash just can't capture the glorious hue of the moment. I am going to think about some of the things you have said here, though, regarding the appreciation of lines and form, and so I thank you for this thought as this might inspire new photo opportunities I otherwise wouldn't have thought of. Here is a photo that I really like that I feel really portrayed shape and form well:
Jack
PS: Thank you once again for your comments and contributions, and I will continue to follow your blog as well.
.
-
Hello again and very nice. Interesting that you like to see the light through your subjects. I will try that myself and see if I can come up with anything nice. Typically, I like the light to illuminate my subjects, not to go through them, but I can see where this perspective could produce some really interesting results.
Again, very interesting musings David, much different from my own in many ways. It's nice to be able to consider viewpoints other than my own. I appreciate the sentiment of not finding a color in nature that is not to like, but I myself oftentimes do. In my experience, sometimes the "natural" colors around (or behind) the butterfly will clash with the actual color of the butterfly, minimizing the impact of the animal rather than enhancing it. To me, this is where the flash comes in: it just wipes-out that unappealing color and makes the butterfly's own color pop. Another instance is shadows. Oftentimes butterfly will be on one flower, and the shadow of another flower is cast over the butterfly's wings. Without a flash, you get a big shadow across the butterfly ... but with the flash you get uniform color. And finally, there is the background. Oftentimes a convoluted mess of background sticks, grass, and/or dry earth can distract from an otherwise "perfect pose" of a beautiful butterfly. Again, the isolation of the flash, and the blacking of the background can make a beautiful image of what would have been an ordinary one.
On the other hand, sometimes I find the natural colors are so fresh and perfect that using a flash ruins the photo: the flash just can't capture the glorious hue of the moment. I am going to think about some of the things you have said here, though, regarding the appreciation of lines and form, and so I thank you for this thought as this might inspire new photo opportunities I otherwise wouldn't have thought of. Here is a photo that I really like that I feel really portrayed shape and form well:
Jack
PS: Thank you once again for your comments and contributions, and I will continue to follow your blog as well.
.
Jack:
It goes without saying that I'm interested in all your thoughts on this topic. If we were discussing landscape photography we'd have a lot more company! No photographer can resist shooting a butterfly that crosses their path but only a handful are gearing up for it specifically. If I had a ring or a twin-light flash my options would open up accordingly. I have a long wish-list of photographic equipment as most here surely do and when I win the lottery I'll close down Samy's in Hollywood for a day.
You're fortunate to have such a lush property as I am to be 15 minutes away from the canyons of Malibu. Regardless, some species offer magnificent color and form only to present them on uninspiring backgrounds. Mother Nature doesn't always respect our aesthetic. I figure all I can do is fill the frame as best I can and find an oblique perspective to render some depth. A perfect specimen like those in your examples is always a great place to start.
Way to take the pain in the puppy pen I know there are shots in my gallery that I appreciate more for the achievement of finally capturing them than the perceived artistic merits. The blog serves as a diary of these struggles and often that's as far as an image gets.
Have you joined a email group yet? There is surely a yahoo group for butterflies, Lepidoptera etc for your area. You'll find people who really know where to go at any given time when you want to find something different to photograph. I'm already planning my next trip to the Southern Sierra based on very exciting reports.
Happy Hunting,
David
-
Jack:
It goes without saying that I'm interested in all your thoughts on this topic. If we were discussing landscape photography we'd have a lot more company! No photographer can resist shooting a butterfly that crosses their path but only a handful are gearing up for it specifically. If I had a ring or a twin-light flash my options would open up accordingly. I have a long wish-list of photographic equipment as most here surely do and when I win the lottery I'll close down Samy's in Hollywood for a day.
This is very true David, and for a variety of reasons. A landscape photographer can check the weather and be 100% confident that, when he arrives at his location, it will be there. By contrast, the butterfly photographer can check the weather and arrive at the location ... but never actually get to see his subject, let alone capture it to camera. The landscape photographer's subject also sits still, and waits for him with eternal patience to tinker everything just right. By contrast, the butterfly photographer's subject is fickle at best, and may or may not wait even 1 second for him to get his gear ready ... let alone just sit there interminably waiting for each adjustment of gear.
So, as a fellow butterfly photographer, it can be frustrating!! But it can also be very rewarding when that perfect specimen is seen at all ... let alone strikes that perfect pose ... let alone waits there long enough for you to get everything right and capture that moment!
To be honest, this is why my interests have gravitated a bit to Florida Wildflowers, where at least my subject sits still, and where now all I have to do is wait for lulls in the ever-blowing breezes and wind
You're fortunate to have such a lush property as I am to be 15 minutes away from the canyons of Malibu. Regardless, some species offer magnificent color and form only to present them on uninspiring backgrounds. Mother Nature doesn't always respect our aesthetic. I figure all I can do is fill the frame as best I can and find an oblique perspective to render some depth. A perfect specimen like those in your examples is always a great place to start.
Agreed, and thank you. I also have a place local to me called the "Butterlfy Rainforest" where many foreign and tropical species are imported weekly for release and public view. There are some really beautiful and exquisite specimens, however, as a photographer shooting them to camera is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. Capturing even the most beautiful specimen has nowhere near the serendipity of capturing a perfectly-shot native specinen, chanced-upon in the field. One of my favorite shots is the White Peacock above, as this was the first one I had ever seen in the wild.
Way to take the pain in the puppy pen I know there are shots in my gallery that I appreciate more for the achievement of finally capturing them than the perceived artistic merits. The blog serves as a diary of these struggles and often that's as far as an image gets.
Yessir! Just getting some of them is nice. I recently got a couple of new hairstreaks, that I have yet to identify, and although the shots weren't all that great, just capturing them to camera (and thereby adding to my collection) was very rewarding for me too.
Have you joined a email group yet? There is surely a yahoo group for butterflies, Lepidoptera etc for your area. You'll find people who really know where to go at any given time when you want to find something different to photograph. I'm already planning my next trip to the Southern Sierra based on very exciting reports.
Happy Hunting,
David
No I haven't joined a group like that yet. There is a club in my area, however, and I send my photos to one of the co-authors of "Butterflies Through Binoculars-Florida" for species confirmation, but as far as actual trips with groups I have not done so yet. I pretty much just get out there with my girlfriend and we take photos of the Florida wildflowers and butterflies we come across.
But I very much do respect your dedicated butterfly trips, and please do share your photos from your next one, and very much I hope you are able to capture the images you have set out to get
Jack
.
-
Yesterday greeted me with this beautiful Luna Moth, so I thought I would share ...
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/luna.jpg)
Enjoy :)
Jack
.
-
Ever since I planted butterfly bushes outside my house, I've had my pick of insects to shoot. :)
Some of your shots have the same sharpness/blurring imperfections mine have.
As do the shots of a friend of mine.
Erratic little buggers are hard to shoot sometimes.
-
Ever since I planted butterfly bushes outside my house, I've had my pick of insects to shoot. :)
Some of your shots have the same sharpness/blurring imperfections mine have.
As do the shots of a friend of mine.
Erratic little buggers are hard to shoot sometimes.
Hello;
It's awfully hard to get a "perfect" still shot of something that moves, isn't it?
I've taken thousands of butterfly shots that get deleted because their imperfections are unacceptable. I have taken many shots that I have kept because the beauty of the image is more compelling than any of the minor flaws. I have taken hardly any shots that I consider "perfect."
What do you shoot with and do you have any examples of your own shots that you would be willing to share that you consider "perfect?"
I'd sure like to see them :)
Thanks,
Jack
.
-
The closest I've really gotten to a "perfect shot" (mostly referring to full focal coverage) is with this monarch. I have a lot of close ones with swallowtails, however. Most of my other bug photos are better focused.
-
The closest I've really gotten to a "perfect shot" (mostly referring to full focal coverage) is with this monarch. I have a lot of close ones with swallowtails, however. Most of my other bug photos are better focused.
Thank you for the beautiful image :)
While I appreciate and understand your criticism of my work, let me offer my own of your work. While the focusing on the Monarch is outstanding, and the background bokeh is lovely, IMO it is far from a perfect shot because of the busy-ness of said background. While the creamy bokeh of the empty space is nice, and focuses attention on your subject, the green leaves and branches directly behind your subject compete with your subject and very much detract from the overall impact. Thus I believe, while the focusing is superb, and the subject is beautiful ... the composition is extremely flawed IMO.
Had you been a little closer, and had the background noise of the branches been omitted, I agree that would have been close to a perfect shot. As it is, however, IMO it was a badly-composed shot of a beautiful subject, taken with excellent focus and lighting technique.
I am more than willing to have any of my images dissected by you (or anyone else) also, as that is the best way to learn IMO ;D
Thanks!
Jack
.
-
Yep. That's the reason I used the qualifier "mostly referring to full focal coverage" in there. ;) ;D
Spent so much time worrying about the subject that the background got overlooked.
-
Yep. That's the reason I used the qualifier "mostly referring to full focal coverage" in there. ;) ;D
Spent so much time worrying about the subject that the background got overlooked.
Well, it's really hard to judge the focus on your image, since you really weren't very close to the subject to begin with, and the size of the image itself is so small. It is a lot harder to get "total focus" with a true 1:1 macro shot, given the limited DOF in macro lenses. Do you have any butterfly images where you got a close enough to the butterfly to get a true 1:1 macro shot, and don't have so much background? I'd sure like to see one that close with "total focus."
It is my belief that successful macro butterfly shots must at least "fill the frame" with the subject butterfly, otherwise they are "snapshots" and not true macro photos. The only exception to this generalization would be if the image is taken as an artistic expression, where the background enhances the image or if the butterfly is only "part" of the presentation. For example, in another thread ("Tiger in the Sun (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44943.0)"), by Dwayne Oakes, his artistic photo has a great deal of background to it surrounding the butterfly ... but ALL of the background enhances the overall effect of the image IMO. It is very artistic.
By contrast, in your example, there isn't much "butterfly" to the image at all ... which means there's mostly background ... and said background doesn't do anything positive for the eye of the viewer (a blurred wall, leaves competing with the butterfly, etc.). While I always enjoy viewing any photo of a butterfly, the image you posted would honestly be a "delete" if it came out of my own camera.
Below is an example of a shot I took yesterday of a Long-Tailed Skipper:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/lts.jpg)
Long-Tailed Skipper
(Click here (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/ltlarge.jpg) for larger image)
To me, most of the important elements of this butterfly are in focus, but at this close proximity (and with the shallow DOF in macro lenses) not every single part will be. Had I gotten much closer, some part of the butterfly would have been cropped.
I believe this photo would qualify just fine for a "species identification" photo in any text- or reference book. I also believe that my background in no way competes with my subject and that my subject really stands out. However, there is nothing "artistic" about the background; it is just a leaf and black space. Thus this image does not have the same "artistic effect" of Dwayne's image of the Tiger Swallowtail.
As we all know, it is hard to get the perfect butterfly to land on the perfect subject, allowing for the perfect overall capture, and all of this serendipity to happen in perfect lighting :)
For me, the macro ringlight flash really allows me to photograph a butterfly (or moth) to its best presentation, with the understanding that when I use this flash I am not going to get that "buttery bokeh" that you and Dwayne get shooting without such a flash.
But, for the most part, I am comfortable with that trade-off: the butterfly really "popping" versus a bokeh background.
Thanks for reading,
Jack
.
-
I don't have a true macro lens, and I don't like getting that close to the bugs. To me, it doesn't feel natural. I want to include some breathing room, so I can take in a little more of their environment. I'm going for art, not ID photos for a book.
I would disagree that these are snapshots. You can't get that close with a P&S camera, nor a starter lens on a cheap SLR, and maintain the sharpness, focal depth and bokeh that I'm going for. There is also some skill involved in angles and approach -- you can't just amble up mindlessly and whip out a camera phone like most would do, or their P&S/DSLR Rebel in "P" mode.
I also insist on natural light for these -- no flash. (Flash adds contrast and shadows that I don't want.) Again, it's about being natural and true to the environment.
I would suggest the images I've been taking have an emotional impact. It's not about "see, here's what a bug looks like".
-
I don't have a true macro lens, and I don't like getting that close to the bugs. To me, it doesn't feel natural. I want to include some breathing room, so I can take in a little more of their environment. I'm going for art, not ID photos for a book.
Well, that is probably why you can get "the whole butterfly" in focus, as you're not very close to it.
A true macro lens has a very shallow DOF and it is almost impossible to get "the whole butterfly" in focus at a very close range. The only way to approach this is to use an f/22 (or beyond) f/stop ... and the only way to do this is to make use of a flash. Thus your statements about getting the whole butterfly in focus just show an inexperience with true macrophotography. Anyone can take a 50mm lens and get the whole butterfly in focus from 3' away, but it's quite another matter to do this at 1:1 magnification from 6"-10" away.
However, that said, I do understand and respect the desire to step back and get part of the environment with certain butterfly shots. I also understand and respect the desire to achieve an artistic expression with the thoughtful use of the environment. However, again, if that "environment" is comprised of your own brick wall in the background, and a bunch of branches directly behind the subject, then your photo can't realistically be called "natural" and it won't qualify as "art" either IMO. By contrast, a photo like the one Dwayne Oakes took does effectively accomplish those ideals you mention.
I would disagree that these are snapshots. You can't get that close with a P&S camera, nor a starter lens on a cheap SLR, and maintain the sharpness, focal depth and bokeh that I'm going for. There is also some skill involved in angles and approach -- you can't just amble up mindlessly and whip out a camera phone like most would do, or their P&S/DSLR Rebel in "P" mode.
Your statements regarding a P&S are false. My Canon Poweshot G9 P&S can take a photo just a few mm from the subject and can fill the frame with only the butterfly's head and foreparts. What it can't really do is achieve the same degree of photo quality that my 7D can, but I could take a far more detailed shot of a Monarch with my P&S than you presented here in the above image. I do agree with you that a truly artistic butterfly shot is all about "skill of angles and approach," which is preceisely where your own posted image fails to impress. The angle and approach is such that there is a wall in the background as well as branches sprouting-out directly behind your subject, spoiling the very effect you were trying to achieve. Thus the angle was unsuitable to capture an artistic mood. Your lighting and the bokeh were very nice, but the angle IMHO was not.
I also insist on natural light for these -- no flash. (Flash adds contrast and shadows that I don't want.) Again, it's about being natural and true to the environment.
Well, I admire your perspective, and in many ways I agree with you (for artistic purposes); yet in many ways this is isn't how natural light pans out. In far too many instances, natural lighting doesn't allow the true colors of the butterfly to be seen. For this reason, every professional butterfly photographer (meaning those who have actually created any kind of field guide or species reference text) relies on the use of flash to take the vast majority of their photographs. And the reason for this, again, is stated in my previous sentence. For example, on the image I just presented of the Long-Tailed Skipper, I will illustrate the point because I took a photo with the available "natural" light, as well as with the use of flash, and I will now juxtapose these two images to illustrate the difference:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/lts2.jpg)
(Taken with available light)
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/lts.jpg)
(Taken with flash)
First of all, let me be the first to admit neither of my images qualifies as "art." The background is simply mundane. Further, the top image is slightly out of focus, and was taken from a bit farther back, so let me be the first to admit these flaws as well. The point of the juxtaposition is this however: The natural light I was presented with was a shady tree canopy. I had to use both 400 ISO (not 100) and even then, not all of the butterfly's natural colors were captured. The inside coloration of the Long-Tailed Skipper is a scintillating mixture of blue-and-gold, forever shifting and changing based on lighting conditions. Had I followed your credo and only relied on natural light, I would have failed to capture the "true essence" of this butterfly's exquisite coloration. However, by making judicious use of flash (in the bottom photo), I was able to capture the true essence of this butterfly's coloration and appeal.
Therefore, it really depends on the purpose of the photograph (and the nature of the background) to determine whether or not to use a flash as well as to determine if the background enhances (or detracts) from the image. In your case, the lighting was excellent, but the background hurt your image. If presented with the same lighting conditions as you, I might not have have used a flash either, but I also wouldn't have positioned myself so that my wall and a bunch of branches were directly behind my subject. But if yours was the only angle I had, then making use of the flash would have "blacked-out" the poor background, allowing only the butterfly to shine.
In my case of the Long-Tailed Skipper, the background behind my subject wasn't bad, but there was nothing "artistic" about it either. My own goal was to get as detailed a shot of the butterfly as I could. With the available natural light this was impossible, as the iridescent gold coloration would not come out under the shady conditions. However, with the use of flash, all of the scintillating coloration in fact did come out, making the second image a far more effective presentation (for my purposes).
Had I been looking for a "fine art" shot, I simply would have had to pass on that instance altogether.
I would suggest the images I've been taking have an emotional impact. It's not about "see, here's what a bug looks like".
I would respectfully disagree. Dwayne's image carries such an emotional impact, but IMHO your image simply does not. The only emotion I got when viewing your image was, "Why was the wall in the background?", as well as, "Why did he not move so the leaves and sticks were out of the way?"
I also disagree that some images are not, in fact, exactly "Here's what this bug looks like."
The entire point of macrophotography is to bring a tiny subject up closer to view than can be seen with the naked eye so as to appreciate the intricate beauty of the tiny animal that we cannot normally see with our naked eye. The "emotional impact" from my own butterfly pic comes from the butterfly's own scintillating colors, not from me or from some magical angle I created.
I do understand that great photographers are those who create these "magical angles" that evoke moods and emotions in us. I did nothing close to that with my image, I merely captured the butterfly's own beauty with my camera, as I am nowhere near being a "great artistic photographer."
And while I do sincerely appreciate and respect your efforts in trying to get such an artistic angle with your own shot, I don't believe it was a very effective effort, unfortunately, for the reasons already mentioned.
Best regards,
Jack
.
-
The DOF and focusing with a near-macro focusing lens, using a 2x extender, is just a challenging as 1:1.
Using flash is simply artificial. Any colors it might pull out are unnatural to the environment -- you didn't see those colors anyway. I want to capture the moment that was observed, not jimmy and jack around with it via camera tricks. I can think of far more interesting subject matter for playing with lighting and augmenting natural color.
If I wanted to get closer, I could always crop the image. But I don't want that. At full size, my image is quite sharp and detailed.
You really come across as an ass, so I don't think I'm interested in any further conversation with you. For me, this is all impromptu fun photography. It's a way for the camera to still be fun, instead of always being used solely for work. So I don't need some wise acre telling me that my shots should be deleted. I think your flash work is terrible, but I don't feel the need to give you a verbal raping over it. If I wanted harsh criticism, I could just ask my last editor for opinions -- he was needlessly rude, too. (And to make things worse, he couldn't shoot himself out of a paper bag.)
Enjoy your butterfly shooting, all the same. Thanks.
-
Using flash is simply artificial. Any colors it might pull out are unnatural to the environment -- you didn't see those colors anyway. I want to capture the moment that was observed, not jimmy and jack around with it via camera tricks. I can think of far more interesting subject matter for playing with lighting and augmenting natural color.
Really? IMO, you simply delude yourself. The truth is you simply fail to acknowledge the fact that using a camera is itself artificial. The whole concept of achieving a "bokeh" in your style of photography is itself artificial. That is not how one "naturally" sees an image. Therefore, you didn't capture anything "natural" at all either, you merely prefer your style of distortion of what was actually there through your own style of modifying your own camera's adjustments. Your adjustments are no less artificial than mine.
The truth is, I didn't "jimmy and jack with camera tricks" (by turning on my flash) any more than you did setting your f/stop and ISO. I simply used another tool at my disposal to pull out the full potential of the available presentation.
If I wanted to get closer, I could always crop the image. But I don't want that. At full size, my image is quite sharp and detailed.
Cropping the image isn't "getting closer." Nor is it as effective as buying a better tool for the job. For your purposes, however, what you're using is just fine. For the best possible close-up macrophotography, a true macro lens is best.
You really come across as an ass, so I don't think I'm interested in any further conversation with you.
LOL, I don't remember calling you any names. Yet here you are calling me names and yet you say "I" am the ass.
The truth is, you're yet another weak person who can't take blunt criticism. You can offer criticism, but you can't take it.
The blunt truth of the matter is, if achieving "skill in angles" is the defining point of an artistic image, then you simply failed in precisely this skill set. Even by your own admission.
For me, this is all impromptu fun photography. It's a way for the camera to still be fun, instead of always being used solely for work.
Butterfly photography is fun for me too. So is debating the merits of image quality with overly-sensitive types who are easily butt-hurt.
So I don't need some wise acre telling me that my shots should be deleted.
I didn't say your shots "should" be deleted; I said *I* would have deleted that shot. There is a difference.
For that matter, I have deleted these last two shots of mine also, as they have served their purpose and I really have no long-term use for them.
I think your flash work is terrible, but I don't feel the need to give you a verbal raping over it.
LOL, true to hypocritical form, you just did give me a "verbal raping" :)
Unlike you, I my feelings are not hurt over your reactive opinion. BTW, what do you feel is terrible about my flashwork? I didn't struggle too hard in the post-processing, and I do think the saturation is a bit much, but other than that the colors came out wonderfully. Especially on the full-sized .tiff.
If I wanted harsh criticism, I could just ask my last editor for opinions -- he was needlessly rude, too. (And to make things worse, he couldn't shoot himself out of a paper bag.)
It seems your last editor didn't like your images either ... and it seems you feel the need to insult him too ... are we noticing a pattern here? ;)
In my case, if you didn't want criticism, then you shouldn't have first given it.
Myself, I actually welcome criticism, the more open and honest the better, but I also want to see if the person who criticizes can first show he can "walk his talk." I think this is fair. In your case, you first spoke to me of "perfection," and when I asked for a sample of your own perfection, you presented to me a poorly-composed shot, taken from 3' away, as a model of macro-focus perfection. I think that the images I posted on the first page, and of the moth photos above your first post, are light years better quality macro shots (compositionally, color-wise, and qualitatively) than your image. Now then, to show I am not just proud of my own images, I think SolarDarkroom truly does have many exceptional butterfly images too, many of which are better than my own, images which show true skill in macrophotography. I likewise appreciate Dwayne Oakes' "Tiger in the Sun" artistic butterfly portrayal. So I am not afraid to give compliments when they are due, nor am I afraid to admire another man's work (nor to learn from any man who knows more about a subject than I do).
In your case, however, the truth is your image is simply a discard-level image IMO and does nothing for me. That you achieved "sharp total focus" of the butterfly is only because it was a speck in your viewfinder and not a true macro shot. And that the bokeh was nice doesn't change the fact the shot was poorly-composed with a severely-flawed background. In my honest opinion, your image is neither suitable as "fine art" nor is it suitable as a model of species identification. Either of these could have been done much more effectively.
I am sorry if this offends you, but you put yourself in this position by speaking of "perfection" and then offering as an example a severely-flawed image. Still, I never called you any names, as you called me. I merely called your attention to the fact that your image failed in precisely the "skill in angles" requirement you yourself said was the defining line between a work of art and a snapshot.
Enjoy your butterfly shooting, all the same. Thanks.
I always do---and you do the same :)
Take care, and don't take the simple truth so hard, it is unbecoming.
Jack
.
-
For those who prefer "artsy" photographs, I am curious if you think the following image qualifes as "butterfly art"? I think it does (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/viceroy.jpg)
Gushing praise (or hurled tomatoes) welcome (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/biggrin2.gif)
Jack
BTW, the species of butterfly is a Viceroy.
.
-
hahaha
there might only be 4 of us here-
:D
anyway I want to say yes I love the colors.
Reminds me of all the ling cod skin shots I have.
Tons of just fun color from fishes, all kinds not just lings.
I have cabezone, abalone, urchins, well all sorts of crazy colorful sea life shots.
I liked the color more than the fish, so I have tons of partial shots like the one above,
do you see?
OK Hey thanks for the direction and effort,
I am learning alot,
bye
-
I'm not a nature photographer or a macro specialist, so I hate to jump in here, but I kinda liked this one.
Shot with a GF1 with the 20mm lens at f/2. (Told you I wasn't a nature photog. ;) ) Shot a bunch of images to get a few that I liked. These were taken on a trail up to a fire tower on the Blue Ridge Parkway last week. Tens of thousands of butterflies on the Joe Pye Weed along the trail.
-
hahaha
there might only be 4 of us here-
:D
anyway I want to say yes I love the colors.
Reminds me of all the ling cod skin shots I have.
Tons of just fun color from fishes, all kinds not just lings.
I have cabezone, abalone, urchins, well all sorts of crazy colorful sea life shots.
I liked the color more than the fish, so I have tons of partial shots like the one above,
do you see?
OK Hey thanks for the direction and effort,
I am learning alot,
bye
Thanks Rocco!
RE: Fish: that would be a truly interesting experience as well as a never-ending study in form and color. Wow, didn't even consider fish before.
Here I was trying to step outside my usual "full body" photos and try for a different looks and feels with the shapes and colors.
Jack
.
-
I'm not a nature photographer or a macro specialist, so I hate to jump in here, but I kinda liked this one.
Shot with a GF1 with the 20mm lens at f/2. (Told you I wasn't a nature photog. ;) ) Shot a bunch of images to get a few that I liked. These were taken on a trail up to a fire tower on the Blue Ridge Parkway last week. Tens of thousands of butterflies on the Joe Pye Weed along the trail.
Nice shot of a Pipevine Swallowtail Ken.
I know what you mean about throwing away images, because I have thrown away thousands myself. While I do like your photograph, and while the Pipevine Swallowtail is one of the most attractive species there is IMO, I have two friendly criticisms: One is that that the butterfly's eyes were out of focus. I have taken (no telling how) many shots where the wings were gorgeously-displayed ... but the eyes were blurry ... that I have discarded for this reason. (Take my own shot of the Long-Tailed Skipper above, in natural light: the wings show nicely but the head was blurry and so I let it go.)
On the other hand, certain "soft-focus" butterfly (and flower) shots are very pleasing to the eye and can allow this sort of thing to happen. In fact, this was what I was trying to demonstrate in the Viceroy shot above, where I didn't even include the head (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
I am no expert in soft-focus shots, but IMHO in order for those kinds of shot to work their best, there has to be simplicity of shape and color in the background, not busy-ness of shape and color. In your case, shooting at f/2 guaranteed most of the image would be blurry and that there would be a lot of bokeh, which is great. In the case of the background on the left, this worked wonderfully: both the green color and the simplicity of blurred shapes really made your butterfly stand out nicely. In the case of the Joe Pye Weed on the right, however, my other friendly criticism is that this was a little too busy to work well with the concept of a soft-focus bokeh shot IMO. The pinkinsh color and the busy-ness of this blurred weed compete with your butterfly for my eye's attention. I want to keep looking at your butterfly, but the size and busy-ness of the Joe Pye Weed keep pulling my eyes away from your butterfly.
IMO, for a bokeh shot to work as it was intended, the blurred background should draw full attention to your subject, not take attention away from it, and for that to happen the background has to be simple, in both shape and color, and that color should enhance your image not clash with it.
Thanks for sharing!
Jack
.
-
A couple more that I like ...
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Photography/amlady.jpg)
American Lady
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Photography/gulffritillary.jpg)
Gulf Fritillary
Enjoy,
Jack
.
-
Haven't seen a Great Purple Hairstreak in more than 2 years ... finally ran into one today and was able to get some nice shots of it:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/gphairstreak.jpg)
Great Purple Hairstreak
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/gphairstreak1.jpg)
I again took one shot with natural lighting, and another with a flash, to show the totally different effects of each. It's hard to say which shot is "better" ... on the one hand, the texture of the butterfly's wings is much silkier and pleasant to look at, while on the other hand all of the tiny color fragments of the butterfly pop-out when the flash is used.
Both photos were taken from the same basic perspective, hand-held.
Enjoy,
Jack
.
-
Of the two I prefer the natural lighting - for this image, Jack. Of course, one doesn't always get the opportunity to shoot both!
Mike.
-
Of the two I prefer the natural lighting - for this image, Jack. Of course, one doesn't always get the opportunity to shoot both!
Mike.
Thanks for your views Mike, as always :)
Jack
.
-
Saturday morning I had the good fortune of having an absolutely flawless Tersa Sphinx land on the trunk of an old tree outside my back door ... and just sit there letting me take as many photos as I wanted. Perfecto!
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/tersa.jpg)
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/tersa1.jpg)
Enjoy!
Jack
.
-
Jack,
I suspect you are paying your models more than the going rate!
Eric
-
Jack,
I suspect you are paying your models more than the going rate!
Eric
Well, that's the beauty of it, Eric, they do it for free (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
Jack
.
-
John,
The profile shot of the Tersa Sphinx is hands-down my favorite ever. Awesome! That's what I call art. I'm also envious of your mint condition Purple Hairstreak. I recently drove 250 chasing that bug and came home empty handed. Yours looks like it emerged that morning. As for flash I could go with either one with all the various pros and cons. If you'd taken one with just a touch of fill flash for sparkle I'd be interested in seeing that too for comparison. One day I'll shoot with a flash.
Regards,
David
www.solardarkroom.com
-
John,
The profile shot of the Tersa Sphinx is hands-down my favorite ever. Awesome! That's what I call art. I'm also envious of your mint condition Purple Hairstreak. I recently drove 250 chasing that bug and came home empty handed. Yours looks like it emerged that morning. As for flash I could go with either one with all the various pros and cons. If you'd taken one with just a touch of fill flash for sparkle I'd be interested in seeing that too for comparison. One day I'll shoot with a flash.
Regards,
David
www.solardarkroom.com
Thank you very much David, that means a lot coming from as dedicated a butterfly shooter as yourself! And,interestingly, both shots of the Tersa Sphinx were taken with a tripod and natural lighting :)
Don't feel bad about the Great Purple Hairstreak, as I have lived here in FL for several years and have only seen it 2x previously. When I reported my finding to Florida lepidopterist John Calhoun (co-author of Butterflies Through Binoculars, Florida), he has lived in his home for more than a decade and only seen the GPH one time himself on his own property. They are scarce! So thrilled was I about my photographic opportunity, that I wrote a little passage on my blog about it ... which I think that you (being a fellow fancier) will get a kick out of:
http://johnkoerner.org/Blog/2010/08/31/great-purple-hairstreak
And, as a matter of fact, I just had a similar experience yesterday regarding another rare (to me) species, the Little Metalmark. In precisely the same fashion, I have only seen 2 of these tiny jewels previously also, but never had my camera. This time I did and was able to get some pretty decent shots of it:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/littlemetalmark1.jpg)
This opportunity was much more fleeting, however, and I was only able to get 5 shots of this specimen (from my knees, propped on my left elbow) before he took off. Still, the find made my entire day yesterday (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/laugh.gif)
If you'd like to see the others, check out my Internet Butterfly Collection: http://www.johnkoerner.org/ButterflyCollection/littlemetalmark.html
Cheers!
Jack
.
-
John,
I hope your appointment wasn't a job interview! I understand completely of course.
Scale is integral to perception and insects the size of postage stamps are just not that interesting to most people. When one sees that same little creature through a macro lens it fills the entire field of vision and commands much greater attention. I shoot a lot of small butterflies and people are always amazed when I tell them how small it actually is. Most plants and flowers we capture our subjects on lack a definitive scale in the final image. A single cluster of buckwheat blossoms can seem like a bouquet of Lilies to the casual observer of a macro photograph. That Western Pygmy Blue can look as big as a monarch which is the main scale refererence people have.
Your Little Metalmark is a beauty for sure. It looks a bit like my favorite from out here: Wright's Metalmark (Calephelis wrigti) which I blogged about last year:
http://www.solardarkroom.com/blog/2009/04/15/metalmarks-in-the-movaje-deep-gravel-and-snakes/
The top shot on your page is my favorite. Nice work!
Cheers,
David
www.solardarkroom.com
-
Very nice images David, and once again great perseverance in getting your desired end.
Your remarks about the coloration of the Wright’s Metalmark matching the desert terrain is spot-on (almost the color of clay and American Indian pottery :) ). Great shot of the Neumoegen’s Checkerspot too. I had never heard of this species, but enjoyed the photo. Even though it wasn't close, it reminded me of hiking in the southwest and seeing the various butterflies land on the rocks and such on the trail. Butterflies actually seem to "fly different" out there than they do here in Florida, they flit more and seem more restless ...
Anyway, thank you for your comment about the top image on my page of the Little Metalmark ... that is my favorite image also :)
Here is a nice natural light image I captured of an American Lady that you might enjoy:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/amlady.jpg)
Cheers!
Jack
.
-
Nice Shot! That could work in both landscape and portrait too. If I'd had to guess I would have said you used some fill flash but the light was obviously just right. I've often wanted to try a ring flash just for a little fill and sparkle. I'd probably get a few more keepers since I'm always shooting into the sun ;D
-
Nice Shot! That could work in both landscape and portrait too. If I'd had to guess I would have said you used some fill flash but the light was obviously just right. I've often wanted to try a ring flash just for a little fill and sparkle. I'd probably get a few more keepers since I'm always shooting into the sun ;D
LOL, you're right David. In checking the exif data, I actually did fire a flash. It was a few months ago, so I must have forgot. However, I am 100% certain it wasn't the ringlight, though, but rather the pop-up on my 7D that (as you said) was used for fill.
I do agree with you that the use of a little flash in harsh sunlight makes all the difference in the world. I took several photos of this spider (http://johnkoerner.org/Blog/2010/09/25/not-every-flower-is-as-it-seems) in both natural light as well as with flash ... and the colors in the natural photos came out terrible in the harsh light ... but they came out absolutely perfecto through the use of flash.
Jack
.
-
John, might I suggest, build yourself a moth trap. Moths have been a thing of mine since I was a kid and I built a Robinson trap with a MV lamp on it. My interest has waned now but I still run once a month on a timer outside the back door because my kids love it. This usually catches 50-500 moths during a night, even in winter (although they tend to be grey/brown and drab during the winter here in the UK).
-Nass
-
John, might I suggest, build yourself a moth trap. Moths have been a thing of mine since I was a kid and I built a Robinson trap with a MV lamp on it. My interest has waned now but I still run once a month on a timer outside the back door because my kids love it. This usually catches 50-500 moths during a night, even in winter (although they tend to be grey/brown and drab during the winter here in the UK).
-Nass
Thank you for the suggestion. While I certainly see the advantages to trapping moths, and I appreciate the suggestion, I personally don't trap anything. I know of people who even go so far as to "refrigerate" butterflies (to slow them down), and who then place the disabled butterfly on specifically-chosen flowers for added effect, and then they can just fire-away and get some really nice images.
But that kind of thing takes the magic out of it for me. I just photograph what I am lucky enough to come across :)
Jack
.
-
A few more taken today ... all natural light ...
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/gulf.jpg)
Gulf Fritillary on Blazing Star
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/gulf2.jpg)
Gulf Fritillary on Pickerel Weed
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/jh.jpg)
Juniper Hairstreak on Spanish Needles
Enjoy,
Jack
.
-
The Gulf Frit shots are spectacular!. The dorsal shot's my favorite with the side-light punching up the surface detail so well. Did you use fill flash? I can't tell on this one so it doesn't even matter. The shot just works.
David
-
The Gulf Frit shots are spectacular!. The dorsal shot's my favorite with the side-light punching up the surface detail so well. Did you use fill flash? I can't tell on this one so it doesn't even matter. The shot just works.
David
Looking at the exif data, the top and bottom shots were with natural light, while the center shot used a fill flash. In posting it, though, I thought the light was with natural light ... but apparently I did musta used the pop-up flash for fill. I tool so many photos that day, it's hard to remember the details of each shot. I did not bring the ringlight with me that day though, which makes the camera much lighter :)
Thanks for you comments and glad you liked them!
Jack
.
-
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/zarucco.jpg)
Zarucco Duskywing (crop)
.
-
Some cool moths ...
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/angle.jpg)
Angle-Winged Emerald
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/melonworm.jpg)
Melonworm Moth
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/unkmoth.jpg)
Unknown Moth
.